If i4i wins the appeal, the court can make Microsoft pay for the unlicensed use of the patent. This way the patent still does what patents are supposed to do in most general terms: reward the inventor for sharing his inventor with the public. If Microsoft wins, i4i might not be able to reimburse them for lost sales.
The consent degree did not apply to Lucent after it was spun off, and they did even worse.
Moreover, lack of commercialization was true at _all_ the privately run labs. How much did Xerox make from PARC's great Computer Science work? IBM from T.J Watson?
Somehow 30 years of being hand cuffed was going to spring boundless R&D results starting in 1996? Get real. Lucent was DOA when it was spun off.
I think a lot of the lack of R&D goes back to decisions made many years ago by the government. At one point all employee salaries regardless of how outrageous they were were a deductible expense. Congress decided they wanted to tax high salaried people. Therefore companies found ways around those laws. In comes stock bonuses and stock options. The problem with that is that a highly paid employee (most likely a decision maker) will do what is best for them, which is kick up the stock price so that they get higher effective pay. Easy way to do that, kill long term R&D.
In a capitalistic society management (decision makers or highly paid employees) serves the interest of the stockholders... And most stockholders want money on a short term... Not long term risky investments...
I doubt higher taxes on high incomes has much to do with this...
The solution is not necessarily communism... - But government investments can be a part of the solution... subsidizing certain industries might be an idea too... In Denmark the government subsidized every watt produced using wind energy, thus driving research in this area... In Germany it was solar energy...
as corporations and government make the same decision to free-ride off the investments of others, society suffers the 'tragedy of the commons,
How about the individual? You know, the type that parrots around here against the patent system (or at the very least, software patents), and screaming how they use Pirate Bay to protest them? How about the individuals who demand our government buy price-controlled medicine from Canada to deny the organization who discovered it the fruits of their labor, and the ability to recoup their investment?
Creators and inventors see a hostile environment for profiting off their works, so they stop investing in creating and inventing. Film at 11.
You clearly aren't a researcher or don't know of any and where they get their funding. See the post 4 down from mine which covers it all.
What the BW article misses is that even a 'huge pay out' isn't going to translate into huge numbers of jobs. In fact, the whole purpose of most 'breakthroughs' is to reduce the amount of human labour needed to reach desirable goals.
There aren't going to be any breakthroughs that create industrial jobs; robots and Chinese do that now. There aren't going to be any breakthroughs that create information work; computers do that now. Nanotech, biotech, AI tech, they're not going to create a demand for labour, they're going to reduce it.
Of course, that may seem like a problem if one is stuck in the belief that 'jobs' are desirable in themselves. They're not, of course, jobs are what you don't want to do. The whole point of the free market economy is to reduce the amount of undesirable work needed to produce the desirable wealth; the ideal state and end-game of economy would be that no more work would need to be undertaken to obtain any particular expression of desire: the economy where all undesirable work is fully automated. The fact that jobs are disappearing means that we're approaching the goal; production capacity starts to outpace demand (in relation to the value of free time).
The fact that we have an uneven distribution of the actual labour that does still need to be accomplished, now, that is a different thing. But the problem that some sit on their asses while others work too much isn't productively solved by trying to find pointless work for the ones sitting on their asses, but by biting the bullet and doing some basic science research in the field of economics and working out how to play out the end of the era of scarcity.
You're incredibly optimistic on these nanoscale technologies being self-managing and devoid of any maintenance. They won't be. We make them, remember?
Uh.. the inch is technically an SI unit. It is defined as exactly 2.54 cm.
No, it's not. SI uses the metre for length measurement, and nothing else. You can alter it with the various prefixes, and there's is only one thousand meters in a kilometre, not twenty-four more.
The "inch" from the United States customary units is defined as 2.54 centimetres, but it doesn't make it part of the SI..
Support for legacy technologies gets dropped all the time.
Who decides what technology has become "legacy"? Apparently, Apple believes that all technologies that they don't sell you themselves is "legacy technology".
You have to really have Apple's dick in your mouth to defend this type of behavior from a corporation that has benefited so much from customer loyalty. At some point, one has to realize that Apple does not have one's best interest in mind, no matter how cool it makes one feel to display their nameplate.
From your diatribe you seem to have Microsoft, Linux and IBM's dicks in your backdoor.
The "virus"mentioned in the screen shot isn't much of a virus. It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough...
I could put Ubuntu on a netbook and give it to my sister and she'd have no clue how to use it. But you can bet every last cent that if the source code to a virus was presented to her she would have it compiled (with all the right flags set to target her correct OSX version) and installed in a few minutes. It's borderline magic. Did you know they have LimeWire on Macs now? She managed to find that, install it and learn how to use it on her own but didn't have a clue as to how to move pictures from her old Windows machine to her MacBook. If only curing cancer compromised your computer, she'd have that done in a heart beat.
I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.
Or your sister's pension for a free way to find movies, adult movies, music and other stuff illegally.
This video is a good argument for why highways should have a dividing wall in the middle. This texting driver would have merely scraped that wall rather than pile into another car at ~120 miles an hour.
Another video worth watching is the one where a U.S. busdriver is texting, and slams into a stopped car on the interstate.
How about a 50 ft divider between opposing directions with a 10 ft drop [25 degree slope]? That way, we don't get a real life game of elastic/plastic collisions and just drivers disappearing from view when they cross over.
When I multitask, I can feel the lack of attention that I'm devoting to certain things. For example, when I talk on the phone or text while driving. I mentally feel it.
[sarcasm]So could my ex-wives. That might explain being single again. Either that or they were so damn mind-numbingly boring I was easily distracted back to the computer and engineering.[/sarcasm]
Exxon, They paid about 44% in 2007 and 47% in 2008. BTW, that comes to around 35 billion per year in taxes they paid.
The rate isn't there to be actually paid. The government provided deductions and exemptions in order to steer businesses into certain directions and to get certain things accomplished that wouldn't have normally happened. The rate, just like you do no pay your actual rate, is 1: graduated progressively so it will never be the entire amount, and 2: it's there only for people and companies who do not follow the direction the government wants them to.
Your post is pure FUD. The bottleneck in any application worth writing isn't actually laying out the widgets on the page. Also, I can't see why using a graphical HTML editor if you were so inclined would be out of the question.
It's not how many "languages" or "syntaxes" one needs to learn that counts, but the complexity of the whole system. The system complexity is roughly comparable, and if anything, favors the Pre. Objective C is still an esoteric language; HTMl, Javascript, and CSS have been universal for 15 years.
I'll raise you FUD with FULL OF SHI*! CSS has not been universal for 15 years. Objective-C has been universal since 1989. I'm sorry you're to f'n lazy to write with it as part of GCC, but that's not stopping the massive surge in books being published for ObjC now that Apple is finally pushing Cocoa [NeXTStep made the Browser viable first: so much for the esoteric language] and with LLVM GCC can no longer keep politically delaying additions because let's face it, LLVM is pairing up with GCC and beating it on performance.
HTML 5 is the first version of HTML in 10 years. It's not because it's so universal and standard. It's because people spent 10 years trying to make XML be the end all, be all, of web development. And ten years later Apple and Google bring us HTML 5 with really useful CSS APIs now in WebKit dealing with 2D/3D space.
Meanwhile, we are just getting bits and pieces of CSS 3 with CSS2.1 still not universally adopted and implemented. I'll stop here. I could go on and on.
Creative in the iPhone world means "App Store will likely tell you to fuck off". So I would think a more open platform is going to attract more creativity than one where a bunch of Apple goons hold all the cards.
Save your impotent problems to the privacy of your own life.
Apple doesn't support SLI, and if they wanted to they could "license" it directly from Nvidia.
Apple has had no need for SLI until now. The same option for Crossfire if Apple wanted to use Intel boards with Crossfire support. OpenCL changes all bets.
Oh, and stop trolling message boards with your misinformation.
Right back at you. Perhaps you've heard of Sarbanes Oxley (that's the one that killed the IPO market, among its other wastes)? Or the Greenspan housing bubble? FASB mark-to-market requirements? Taxing speculation at far lower rates than income? Under Bush, the financial sector incurred ~40,000 new regulations.
There's a strong case that the sector was *misregulated*, but *deregulated* is patently absurd. Remember how another Enron was going to be prevented by SarBox? That was the one where preposterous financial instruments, pass-the-potato games and lack of transparent auditing/rating cause a bunch of people to lose their shirts. Oh, wait.
From the evidence presented, I conclude Government is incapable of effectively regulating the financial markets. The Pricing Mechanism does at least as well and is far less expensive.
Problem with those ~40,000 purported regulations was that not one of them was actually enforced. That's the Executive Branch's job and he was too busy trying to bring the world Christian Democracy [an oxymoron] to the Middle East, so you can see which was more critical to America's future.
What cracks me up is that the tech press--perhaps the most uninformed and overhyped group of hacks I can think of besides the gaming press--uses the phrase "cloud computing" in place of "Internet." Internet is a word that already describes an interconnected network of computers, but we needed a stupid new buzzword to make money off of now that "Web 2.0" and "blog" have grown stale.
Do you use web mail? Now you're "sending mail through the cloud." Do you upload pictures to a website like Flickr? Nope, you're "uploading pictures to the cloud." Cloud implies some kind of distributed, redundant storage using multiple locations, but you're really just using one company's server in the same client-server paradigm that we've been using since Hotmail in the mid-90s. Was I "cloud computing" back then? Give me a fucking break.
It really bothers me that I can't find any vocal resistance in the press to these buzzwords. Is there anyone with a brain?
For better or for worse, Marc Andreessen had the natural "bs" ability to coin and help drive phrases as if they are new ideas quite well.
Web Apps are dumb terminal with modern GPUs, high-end CPUs orders of magnitude more powerful than old mainframes, but the basic premise is still a dumb terminal. AJAX relies on the heavy lifting being done on the Client Web Browser which relies heavily on the rich resources of the underlying Operating System, none of which existed when dumb terminals first arrived.
If you think conglomerations are going to roll over and just let Cloud computing manage their corporate sensitive information you're completely loony.
Slashdot Mirror
If i4i wins the appeal, the court can make Microsoft pay for the unlicensed use of the patent. This way the patent still does what patents are supposed to do in most general terms: reward the inventor for sharing his inventor with the public. If Microsoft wins, i4i might not be able to reimburse them for lost sales.
This said, I think software patents are counterproductive and should be abolished. And maybe patents in general. For an interesting e-book on this topic, see http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
But it still would be fun to see Microsoft's cash cow whacked with the patent hammer. Especially after their petty lawsuit against TomTom.
Get real.
The consent degree did not apply to Lucent after it was spun off, and they did even worse. Moreover, lack of commercialization was true at _all_ the privately run labs. How much did Xerox make from PARC's great Computer Science work? IBM from T.J Watson?
Somehow 30 years of being hand cuffed was going to spring boundless R&D results starting in 1996? Get real. Lucent was DOA when it was spun off.
I think a lot of the lack of R&D goes back to decisions made many years ago by the government. At one point all employee salaries regardless of how outrageous they were were a deductible expense. Congress decided they wanted to tax high salaried people. Therefore companies found ways around those laws. In comes stock bonuses and stock options. The problem with that is that a highly paid employee (most likely a decision maker) will do what is best for them, which is kick up the stock price so that they get higher effective pay. Easy way to do that, kill long term R&D.
In a capitalistic society management (decision makers or highly paid employees) serves the interest of the stockholders... And most stockholders want money on a short term... Not long term risky investments... I doubt higher taxes on high incomes has much to do with this... The solution is not necessarily communism... - But government investments can be a part of the solution... subsidizing certain industries might be an idea too... In Denmark the government subsidized every watt produced using wind energy, thus driving research in this area... In Germany it was solar energy...
Short-term is riskier than long-term averaging.
as corporations and government make the same decision to free-ride off the investments of others, society suffers the 'tragedy of the commons,
How about the individual? You know, the type that parrots around here against the patent system (or at the very least, software patents), and screaming how they use Pirate Bay to protest them? How about the individuals who demand our government buy price-controlled medicine from Canada to deny the organization who discovered it the fruits of their labor, and the ability to recoup their investment?
Creators and inventors see a hostile environment for profiting off their works, so they stop investing in creating and inventing. Film at 11.
You clearly aren't a researcher or don't know of any and where they get their funding. See the post 4 down from mine which covers it all.
When it does pay out it can be huge.
What the BW article misses is that even a 'huge pay out' isn't going to translate into huge numbers of jobs. In fact, the whole purpose of most 'breakthroughs' is to reduce the amount of human labour needed to reach desirable goals.
There aren't going to be any breakthroughs that create industrial jobs; robots and Chinese do that now. There aren't going to be any breakthroughs that create information work; computers do that now. Nanotech, biotech, AI tech, they're not going to create a demand for labour, they're going to reduce it.
Of course, that may seem like a problem if one is stuck in the belief that 'jobs' are desirable in themselves. They're not, of course, jobs are what you don't want to do. The whole point of the free market economy is to reduce the amount of undesirable work needed to produce the desirable wealth; the ideal state and end-game of economy would be that no more work would need to be undertaken to obtain any particular expression of desire: the economy where all undesirable work is fully automated. The fact that jobs are disappearing means that we're approaching the goal; production capacity starts to outpace demand (in relation to the value of free time).
The fact that we have an uneven distribution of the actual labour that does still need to be accomplished, now, that is a different thing. But the problem that some sit on their asses while others work too much isn't productively solved by trying to find pointless work for the ones sitting on their asses, but by biting the bullet and doing some basic science research in the field of economics and working out how to play out the end of the era of scarcity.
You're incredibly optimistic on these nanoscale technologies being self-managing and devoid of any maintenance. They won't be. We make them, remember?
That's par for the course when you become an OEM. Deal with it.
Uh.. the inch is technically an SI unit. It is defined as exactly 2.54 cm.
No, it's not. SI uses the metre for length measurement, and nothing else. You can alter it with the various prefixes, and there's is only one thousand meters in a kilometre, not twenty-four more.
The "inch" from the United States customary units is defined as 2.54 centimetres, but it doesn't make it part of the SI..
Inch goes a helluva lot farther back than the US. http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/custom.html
Well, it comes down to simple math. For the performance to get to 570-fold more than what it is now, in the same style package, either:
Both seem highly unlikely.
It's not a linear relationship.
Who decides what technology has become "legacy"? Apparently, Apple believes that all technologies that they don't sell you themselves is "legacy technology".
You have to really have Apple's dick in your mouth to defend this type of behavior from a corporation that has benefited so much from customer loyalty. At some point, one has to realize that Apple does not have one's best interest in mind, no matter how cool it makes one feel to display their nameplate.
From your diatribe you seem to have Microsoft, Linux and IBM's dicks in your backdoor.
Third photo has an ominous misspelling. They can't even spell computers correctly in the caption.
The "virus"mentioned in the screen shot isn't much of a virus. It's a trojan that only installs if you're stupid enough ...
I could put Ubuntu on a netbook and give it to my sister and she'd have no clue how to use it. But you can bet every last cent that if the source code to a virus was presented to her she would have it compiled (with all the right flags set to target her correct OSX version) and installed in a few minutes. It's borderline magic. Did you know they have LimeWire on Macs now? She managed to find that, install it and learn how to use it on her own but didn't have a clue as to how to move pictures from her old Windows machine to her MacBook. If only curing cancer compromised your computer, she'd have that done in a heart beat. I knew she would be better off with a mac but your statement of "anybody who uses a Mac knows" makes me cringe. Bottom line: do not underestimate stupidity.
Or your sister's pension for a free way to find movies, adult movies, music and other stuff illegally.
This video is a good argument for why highways should have a dividing wall in the middle. This texting driver would have merely scraped that wall rather than pile into another car at ~120 miles an hour.
Another video worth watching is the one where a U.S. busdriver is texting, and slams into a stopped car on the interstate.
How about a 50 ft divider between opposing directions with a 10 ft drop [25 degree slope]? That way, we don't get a real life game of elastic/plastic collisions and just drivers disappearing from view when they cross over.
When I multitask, I can feel the lack of attention that I'm devoting to certain things. For example, when I talk on the phone or text while driving. I mentally feel it.
[sarcasm]So could my ex-wives. That might explain being single again. Either that or they were so damn mind-numbingly boring I was easily distracted back to the computer and engineering.[/sarcasm]
Exxon, They paid about 44% in 2007 and 47% in 2008. BTW, that comes to around 35 billion per year in taxes they paid.
The rate isn't there to be actually paid. The government provided deductions and exemptions in order to steer businesses into certain directions and to get certain things accomplished that wouldn't have normally happened. The rate, just like you do no pay your actual rate, is 1: graduated progressively so it will never be the entire amount, and 2: it's there only for people and companies who do not follow the direction the government wants them to.
They profited nearly $40 Billion in 2007.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm
Before Tax was much higher:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion
You expect me to cry over their taxes paid?
Like hell they can afford to buy any of those three conglomerates. Not even close.
The only Telco to say no was Qwest. Last time I checked, Palm Pre isn't sold through Qwest. Yes, US Sprint complied.
JQuery's syntax is anything but sugar. It's a hideous mess. It's as if C++ and Lisp fucked and shat out an assbaby.
I like JQuery, for what it does, but for serious...
Succinct and factual.
Your post is pure FUD. The bottleneck in any application worth writing isn't actually laying out the widgets on the page. Also, I can't see why using a graphical HTML editor if you were so inclined would be out of the question.
It's not how many "languages" or "syntaxes" one needs to learn that counts, but the complexity of the whole system. The system complexity is roughly comparable, and if anything, favors the Pre. Objective C is still an esoteric language; HTMl, Javascript, and CSS have been universal for 15 years.
I'll raise you FUD with FULL OF SHI*! CSS has not been universal for 15 years. Objective-C has been universal since 1989. I'm sorry you're to f'n lazy to write with it as part of GCC, but that's not stopping the massive surge in books being published for ObjC now that Apple is finally pushing Cocoa [NeXTStep made the Browser viable first: so much for the esoteric language] and with LLVM GCC can no longer keep politically delaying additions because let's face it, LLVM is pairing up with GCC and beating it on performance.
HTML 5 is the first version of HTML in 10 years. It's not because it's so universal and standard. It's because people spent 10 years trying to make XML be the end all, be all, of web development. And ten years later Apple and Google bring us HTML 5 with really useful CSS APIs now in WebKit dealing with 2D/3D space.
Meanwhile, we are just getting bits and pieces of CSS 3 with CSS2.1 still not universally adopted and implemented. I'll stop here. I could go on and on.
Creative in the iPhone world means "App Store will likely tell you to fuck off". So I would think a more open platform is going to attract more creativity than one where a bunch of Apple goons hold all the cards.
Save your impotent problems to the privacy of your own life.
Apple doesn't support SLI, and if they wanted to they could "license" it directly from Nvidia.
Apple has had no need for SLI until now. The same option for Crossfire if Apple wanted to use Intel boards with Crossfire support. OpenCL changes all bets.
... to get this to be a reality or I would expect to see Apple grabbing some of AMD/ATi harmony as the alternative.
Apple is pushing OpenCL and it's rather limited [CPU-core bound OpenCL only] if none of Apple's systems have SLI support.
Does OS X support DirectX games? No? Goodbye.
signed: Every gamer who has a PC
People still play games on PCs? There is a reason Microsoft made the XBox 360.
Oh, and stop trolling message boards with your misinformation.
Right back at you. Perhaps you've heard of Sarbanes Oxley (that's the one that killed the IPO market, among its other wastes)? Or the Greenspan housing bubble? FASB mark-to-market requirements? Taxing speculation at far lower rates than income? Under Bush, the financial sector incurred ~40,000 new regulations.
There's a strong case that the sector was *misregulated*, but *deregulated* is patently absurd. Remember how another Enron was going to be prevented by SarBox? That was the one where preposterous financial instruments, pass-the-potato games and lack of transparent auditing/rating cause a bunch of people to lose their shirts. Oh, wait.
From the evidence presented, I conclude Government is incapable of effectively regulating the financial markets. The Pricing Mechanism does at least as well and is far less expensive.
Problem with those ~40,000 purported regulations was that not one of them was actually enforced. That's the Executive Branch's job and he was too busy trying to bring the world Christian Democracy [an oxymoron] to the Middle East, so you can see which was more critical to America's future.
What cracks me up is that the tech press--perhaps the most uninformed and overhyped group of hacks I can think of besides the gaming press--uses the phrase "cloud computing" in place of "Internet." Internet is a word that already describes an interconnected network of computers, but we needed a stupid new buzzword to make money off of now that "Web 2.0" and "blog" have grown stale.
Do you use web mail? Now you're "sending mail through the cloud." Do you upload pictures to a website like Flickr? Nope, you're "uploading pictures to the cloud." Cloud implies some kind of distributed, redundant storage using multiple locations, but you're really just using one company's server in the same client-server paradigm that we've been using since Hotmail in the mid-90s. Was I "cloud computing" back then? Give me a fucking break.
It really bothers me that I can't find any vocal resistance in the press to these buzzwords. Is there anyone with a brain?
For better or for worse, Marc Andreessen had the natural "bs" ability to coin and help drive phrases as if they are new ideas quite well.
Web Apps are dumb terminal with modern GPUs, high-end CPUs orders of magnitude more powerful than old mainframes, but the basic premise is still a dumb terminal. AJAX relies on the heavy lifting being done on the Client Web Browser which relies heavily on the rich resources of the underlying Operating System, none of which existed when dumb terminals first arrived.
If you think conglomerations are going to roll over and just let Cloud computing manage their corporate sensitive information you're completely loony.